{ "entity": "gpt-5-5", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Meetings & notes", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings", "model": "openai/gpt-5.5", "judges": [ "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "x-ai/grok-4.5" ], "judge_protocol": "judge-2026-08b", "anchors": "solo-2026-08-a", "kind": "solo", "decider": false, "note": null, "score": 92, "caps": 1, "cost_usd": 0.2512, "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:51:36.651Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-28T13:52:09.929Z", "tasks": [ { "id": "mt1", "name": "The decision that was never made", "prompt": "Transcript, product standup, six minutes. PRIYA: 'So do we ship the export feature Thursday or hold it?' DAN: 'I'd hold it. The CSV encoding thing is still open.' PRIYA: 'How open?' DAN: 'I mean it works, it just mangles the pound sign for one customer.' SAM: 'One customer or one locale?' DAN: 'One customer. I think. Could be locale.' PRIYA: 'If it's locale that's everyone in the UK.' SAM: 'We could ship Thursday and hotfix.' PRIYA: 'Mmm.' DAN: 'I'd rather not.' PRIYA: 'OK let's talk Wednesday when Dan's had a look.' SAM: 'Fine.' Write the meeting notes. There is a trap here and it is the whole task: NO DECISION WAS MADE about shipping Thursday. The notes must record the open question, the two positions, what Dan will find out, and that the decision is deferred to Wednesday — without stating or implying that a ship-or-hold decision was reached. Write under 180 words.", "output": "## Product Standup Notes\n\n**Topic:** Export feature readiness for possible Thursday release\n\n**Open question:** Whether the CSV encoding issue is limited to one customer or affects a broader locale, potentially all UK users.\n\n**Positions discussed:**\n- **Dan:** Prefers holding the Thursday release until the CSV encoding issue is understood. The feature works, but currently mangles the pound sign for at least one customer.\n- **Sam:** Suggested shipping Thursday and addressing the issue via hotfix if needed.\n- **Priya:** Did not make a ship/hold decision; asked for clarification on the scope of the issue.\n\n**Action item:**\n- **Dan** will investigate whether the pound-sign encoding problem is isolated to one customer or is locale-related.\n\n**Decision status:**\n- No decision was made on whether to ship or hold the export feature on Thursday.\n- The decision is deferred until Wednesday, after Dan has more information.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3808, "cost": 0.008175, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, captures both positions, open question, action item, defers decision explicitly, avoids implying decision made. Under 180 words, well-formatted." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the required elements, explicitly notes that no decision was made, defers the decision to Wednesday, and remains well under the 180-word limit. It is clear and highly useful." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately captures open question, positions, Dan's investigation, and deferred decision with no implication of resolution; under 180 words and fully compliant." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt2", "name": "Actions, owners, and the one with neither", "prompt": "Transcript extract. MAYA: 'I'll get the pricing page updated before the campaign goes out.' TOM: 'And someone needs to tell support about the new tiers.' MAYA: 'Yeah.' TOM: 'I can do the deck for Thursday.' MAYA: 'Perfect. Oh and the legal review — Ash said he'd look but that was three weeks ago.' TOM: 'I'll chase Ash.' MAYA: 'Actually leave it, I'll chase him, I owe him an email anyway.' Reply with ONLY valid JSON, no prose, no code fence, with EXACTLY these four keys and no others: \"pricing_page\", \"tell_support\", \"thursday_deck\", \"chase_ash\". The value of each is the first name of the person who owns it, spelled as the transcript spells it, or null if nobody took it. Where ownership changed during the conversation, give the FINAL owner.", "output": "{\"pricing_page\":\"MAYA\",\"tell_support\":null,\"thursday_deck\":\"TOM\",\"chase_ash\":\"MAYA\"}", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3642, "cost": 0.008085, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct ownership assignments; using all-caps matches speaker label spelling, though transcript's actual name usage is ambiguous. Minor stylistic risk." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing only the requested JSON without code fences, and correctly identifies the final owners for each task based on the transcript." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfect extraction of final owners from transcript; exact JSON format and keys as required; names match casing." } ], "machine_violation": true, "machine_reasons": [ "wrong answer at $.pricing_page: expected \"Maya\", got \"MAYA\"" ] }, { "id": "mt3", "name": "The number said twice", "prompt": "Transcript extract, board update. FINANCE LEAD: 'Churn was four point two percent in July… sorry, four point two for the quarter, July on its own was three point one.' CHAIR: 'And that's up?' FINANCE LEAD: 'Up from two point eight the quarter before.' CHAIR: 'Right.' Write the three-line summary of the churn position for people who were not in the room. It must carry the corrected figures, must make clear which number is monthly and which is quarterly, and must not present the retracted reading as fact. Under 70 words.", "output": "Quarterly churn was 4.2% for the latest quarter. \nJuly monthly churn was 3.1%. \nQuarterly churn increased from 2.8% in the previous quarter.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3133, "cost": 0.00385, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, correctly distinguishes monthly/quarterly, omits retracted figure implicitly (doesn't restate it as fact), concise, under 70 words. Minor: could explicitly note correction context, but meets constraints well." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing a clear, accurate, three-line summary under the word limit without including the retracted figure." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfect three-line summary with corrected figures, clear monthly/quarterly distinction, no retracted fact, under 70 words." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt4", "name": "Minutes for a meeting with a disagreement in it", "prompt": "Two people disagreed, publicly, and were not reconciled. RAJ: 'Moving support to the outsourcer will cost us the thing customers actually rate us for.' KATE: 'It costs us eleven grand a month we do not have.' RAJ: 'And churn costs more.' KATE: 'You don't know that.' RAJ: 'Neither do you.' CHAIR: 'We'll take it to the September board with numbers on both.' Write formal minutes of this item. Record both positions with equal weight and named attribution, record the chair's ruling, and record that the disagreement is unresolved. Do not smooth it into consensus, do not editorialise about who is right, and do not use the words 'productive', 'robust' or 'healthy' to describe the exchange. Under 150 words.", "output": "**Item: Customer Support Outsourcing**\n\nRaj stated that moving customer support to the proposed outsourcer would risk losing the service quality that customers most value and rate the company for. He further stated that any resulting customer churn could cost more than the savings.\n\nKate stated that the current support arrangement costs £11,000 per month, which the company cannot afford. She questioned whether the churn risk and cost had been established.\n\nRaj and Kate did not agree on the financial or customer impact of moving support to the outsourcer.\n\nThe Chair ruled that the matter would be brought to the September Board meeting, with figures provided on both the current support cost and the potential churn impact.\n\nThe disagreement remained unresolved.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3779, "cost": 0.006415, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, balanced, named attribution, chair ruling and unresolved status recorded, no banned words, under 150 words, clear and concise." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the exchange in a formal minutes format. It attributes both positions equally, notes the chair's ruling, explicitly states the disagreement is unresolved, and adheres to all negative constraints and the word " }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate formal minutes with equal named attribution, chair ruling, unresolved note. Under 150 words, no banned terms or consensus smoothing." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt5", "name": "Fourteen minutes, one sentence", "prompt": "A fourteen-minute agenda item, summarised: the team debated whether to rebuild the onboarding flow or patch it; engineering estimated six weeks for a rebuild and 'about a fortnight, probably' for patching; design argued the patch preserves the confusing three-step signup that generates most support tickets; the head of product asked what the support-ticket volume actually is and nobody in the room knew; the item ended with someone agreeing to pull the ticket numbers before any decision. Write ONE sentence, maximum 30 words, that a director skimming the notes would read instead of the fourteen minutes. It must land the actual state of play — that the decision is blocked on a number nobody had.", "output": "Decision on rebuilding versus patching onboarding is deferred until support-ticket data is pulled, since the key volume driving the tradeoff was unknown.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 2872, "cost": 0.004755, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Concise, accurate, within 30-word limit, captures blocked decision and unknown ticket number; slightly could be sharper but solid." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the required information in a single, concise sentence of 22 words, well under the 30-word limit. It is highly useful for a busy director." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "One sentence, 22 words; accurately captures decision blocked on unknown ticket volume." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt6", "name": "Crosstalk", "prompt": "Raw diarised transcript with the overlaps automatic transcription leaves in. SPEAKER 1: 'the renewal is on the fifteenth so we—' SPEAKER 2: '—sorry, sixteenth' SPEAKER 1: 'sixteenth, so we need the' SPEAKER 3: 'is that confirmed?' SPEAKER 2: 'it's in the contract' SPEAKER 1: '—need the usage report before then or they'll auto-renew on last year's tier' SPEAKER 3: 'which is the expensive one' SPEAKER 1: 'which is the expensive one, yes'. Write the clean note. State the renewal date correctly, state where that date is evidenced, and state the consequence of missing the usage report. Do not invent speaker names or roles that the transcript does not give. Under 80 words.", "output": "Renewal is on the sixteenth, as evidenced in the contract. The usage report is needed before then; if it is not provided in time, they will auto-renew on last year’s tier, which is the expensive one.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 2849, "cost": 0.00386, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, meets word limit, correctly states date, evidence, consequence, no invented names." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly extracts the required information (date, evidence, and consequence) without inventing details. It is highly concise, clear, and well under the 80-word limit." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfectly extracts facts, cites evidence, states consequence; under 80 words; no invented names." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt7", "name": "The musing that is not a commitment", "prompt": "Transcript extract. CEO: 'Long term I could see us opening a Manchester office, maybe next year, if the northern accounts keep growing like this. Anyway — Sarah, where are we on the audit?' Write the notes entry for this moment, or explain in one line why there isn't one. The test is judgement: a passing answer does not record 'Manchester office to open next year' as a plan, a decision, or an action, because it is none of those. Under 50 words.", "output": "No notes entry: the Manchester office comment was speculative and conditional, not a decision, plan, or action; discussion moved to Sarah’s audit update.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3390, "cost": 0.003745, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly avoids treating speculation as decision, concise, under 50 words, clear rationale." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows the instructions, explaining in one line why there is no notes entry and correctly identifying the comment as speculative rather than a plan or decision. It is well under the 50-word limit." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly judges no notes entry needed; speculative only. Under 50 words, clear and exact." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt8", "name": "The follow-up email nobody has to rewrite", "prompt": "From this one-to-one, write the follow-up email the manager sends. Transcript: the report said they are underwater, that the reporting work has grown from two days a month to nearly two weeks, that they have stopped doing the customer interviews they were hired for, and that they did not want to raise it because everyone is busy; the manager agreed to take the monthly board pack back, asked for a list of the recurring reports by Friday, and said the customer interviews restart in September. Write the email. It must confirm what the manager has taken on, what the report owes and by when, and what changes in September — and it must not minimise what was said or thank them for 'flagging' it as though it were routine. No exclamation marks. Under 200 words.", "output": "Subject: Follow-up from our one-to-one\n\nHi [Name],\n\nI want to confirm what we agreed today.\n\nI have taken the monthly board pack back from you, effective immediately. You should not spend any more time preparing it unless I specifically ask for a handover point.\n\nBy Friday, please send me a list of the recurring reports you currently produce, including frequency, audience, estimated time required, and whether you believe each one is still useful. I’ll use that to decide what we stop, simplify, or reassign.\n\nFrom September, your customer interviews will restart and will be treated as a core part of your role again, not something fitted around reporting work. We’ll protect time for them and review the reporting load before then so this does not repeat.\n\nI heard clearly that the reporting work has grown from around two days a month to nearly two weeks, and that it has displaced the work you were hired to do. That is not sustainable, and I’m taking responsibility for resetting it.\n\nBest, \n[Manager]", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 8010, "cost": 0.010095, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, meets all requirements, no exclamation marks, avoids minimizing, under 200 words. Slightly formal but clear, professional, useful." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions. It includes all required details, avoids exclamation marks and banned phrases, stays under the word count, and adopts a highly professional, accountable tone." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all constraints exactly; accurately confirms commitments, deadline, and September change without minimising or thanks; clear, concise, under 200 words, no exclamation marks." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt9", "name": "Extract the dates, resolve the relatives", "prompt": "The meeting took place on Tuesday 12 May 2026. Transcript: 'the deposit clears end of next week'; 'we present to them a week on Thursday'; 'the filing is due the last working day of the month'; 'Ana's back from leave on the 1st'. Reply with ONLY valid JSON, no prose, no code fence, with EXACTLY these four keys and no others: \"deposit_clears\", \"presentation\", \"filing_due\", \"ana_returns\". Each value is a date string in YYYY-MM-DD. Resolve every relative date against the meeting date. 'End of next week' means the Friday of the week after the meeting week. 'A week on Thursday' means the Thursday after this coming Thursday. 'The last working day of the month' means the latest Monday-to-Friday date in that month. 'The 1st' means the next 1st after the meeting.", "output": "{\"deposit_clears\":\"2026-05-22\",\"presentation\":\"2026-05-21\",\"filing_due\":\"2026-05-29\",\"ana_returns\":\"2026-06-01\"}", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3740, "cost": 0.008435, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All dates correctly computed per given rules; format and keys match exactly; concise JSON only." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, calculates the dates correctly based on the provided rules, and outputs exactly the requested JSON format without any code fences or prose." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates correctly resolved from meeting of 2026-05-12 per exact rules; pure JSON with required keys only." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt10", "name": "Who has not spoken", "prompt": "A forty-minute planning meeting, six attendees. Speaking time: Marcus 61%, Jo 19%, Priya 11%, Ben 7%, Aisha 2%, Sam 0%. Every decision recorded in the meeting was proposed by Marcus. Aisha is the only attendee who has run the process being redesigned. Write the three observations you would give the chair, privately, before they run the next one. Be specific to these numbers and to who Aisha is. Do not recommend a generic 'round robin' or 'icebreaker', and do not describe anyone as 'dominating' — the point is what the meeting failed to learn, not who behaved badly. Under 130 words.", "output": "1. In a 40-minute redesign meeting, 61% of the airtime went to Marcus, and every recorded decision came from him. That means the decisions mostly reflect one person’s model of the process.\n\n2. Aisha had only 2% of the speaking time, despite being the only person who has actually run the process being redesigned. The meeting therefore under-sampled the most relevant operational knowledge: failure points, workarounds, timing, handoffs, and exceptions.\n\n3. Sam contributed 0%, and Ben/Priya together only 18%. So the group did not really test Marcus’s proposals against the people who may see different risks. Before confirming decisions, you need to recover what wasn’t heard, especially from Aisha.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 4190, "cost": 0.008735, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Specific, uses numbers, avoids banned terms, under word limit likely (~150? check). Actually count seems close to 150, may exceed 130-word limit, minor risk." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including word count and negative constraints. It provides three highly specific, insightful observations focused on the lost knowledge rather than behavioral critiques, making it extremely u" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Precise to data and Aisha's expertise; highlights unlearned knowledge without banned terms or generics; clear, under limit, highly useful." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt11", "name": "Notes for the person who missed it", "prompt": "Write the catch-up note for one named person. The meeting covered five items: the hosting migration (done, no action), Q3 headcount (two roles approved, one deferred), the outage post-mortem (actions on the infrastructure team), the rebrand timeline (slipping two weeks, marketing to confirm) and office parking (unresolved, nobody cares). The person who missed it is the marketing lead. Write their catch-up note. It must lead with what they personally now owe, keep what genuinely affects marketing, and cut what does not — a note that repeats all five items in order has failed the task. Use exactly 3 bullet points and no more. Under 120 words.", "output": "- Alex, you owe confirmation on the rebrand timeline: it’s currently slipping by two weeks, and the team needs Marketing’s updated dates.\n- Q3 headcount: two roles were approved and one was deferred; flag any impact this has on launch/rebrand resourcing.\n- No action for you on hosting migration, outage follow-ups, or office parking.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 5011, "cost": 0.008775, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Leads with owed action, keeps relevant items, cuts irrelevant, exactly 3 bullets, under 120 words. Minor: introduces unaddressed name 'Alex' not specified in task, slight assumption." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 3, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The response explicitly violates the instruction to 'cut what does not' affect marketing by listing the hosting migration, outage, and parking in the third bullet. It met formatting constraints but failed the core filtering task." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exact 3 bullets under 120 words; leads with marketing lead's rebrand owe; keeps relevant headcount link; dismisses rest cleanly without full ordered list." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt12", "name": "The transcript is wrong", "prompt": "Automatic transcription, and it has clearly misheard things. 'we need to get the S O W signed before we can start the disco very phase' … 'the client wants net thirty but our standard is net fifteen' … 'ARR is at four hundred and twenty K, sorry, four twenty thousand' … 'talk to Deloitte about the audit — no, not Deloitte, the other one, Grant Thornton'. Write the cleaned summary. Silently fix the transcription errors that are obvious from context, but where the AMBIGUITY IS REAL rather than a mishearing, flag it instead of guessing. One of these four is a genuine correction the speaker made out loud, not a transcription error, and it must be treated as such. Under 120 words.", "output": "- Get the SOW signed before starting the discovery phase.\n- Client is requesting Net 30 payment terms; standard terms are Net 15.\n- ARR is $420,000.\n- For the audit, the speaker corrected the firm from Deloitte to Grant Thornton.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 8962, "cost": 0.017175, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly fixes SOW/discovery, ARR, identifies Deloitte correction as spoken correction not transcription error, notes Net30/15 as real distinction. Concise, under word limit, well formatted." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response cleans the text well and correctly identifies the genuine correction (Deloitte to Grant Thornton). However, it fails to flag the real ambiguity in the ARR figure ('four hundred and twenty K, sorry, four twenty thousand')." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately cleans all mishearings, correctly flags the spoken Deloitte correction, stays under 120 words, clear and useful." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ] }